Effect of Unreamed, Limited Reamed, and Standard Reamed Intramedullary Nailing on Cortical Bone Porosity and New Bone Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of unreamed nail insertion and reamed nail insertion with limited and standard canal reaming on cortical bone porosity and new bone formation. DESIGN: A canine segmental tibial fracture was created in fifteen adult dogs. The tibiae were stabilized with a statically locked 6.5-millimeter intramedullary nail without prior canal reaming (n = 5), after limited reaming to 7.0 millimeters (n = 5), or after standard canal reaming to 9.0 millimeters (n = 5). Porosity, new bone formation, and the mineral apposition rate of cortical bone were directly compared between the three nailing techniques. RESULTS: A significant increase in cortical bone porosity and new bone formation was seen in all three groups of experimental animals compared with the control tibiae. The overall lowest porosity levels were measured in the limited reamed group, with similar porosity levels measured in the unreamed and standard reamed groups. Porosity was lower in the limited reamed group in the entire cortex of the segmental and distal cross sections, as well as the endosteal, anterior, and posterior cortices along the length of the tibia. Overall, there was no difference in the amount of new bone formation or the mineral apposition rate between the three groups of animals at eleven weeks after surgery. DISCUSSION: The results of this study suggest that limited intramedullary reaming is a biologically sound alternative for the treatment of tibial diaphyseal fractures in which the circulation is already compromised.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".